Our cards are on the table

Sometimes talk is not enough. Sometimes people need to stand up and act. The oil industry has throughout history shown a lack of respect for people and the environment. Now here in the frozen north they are doing it again. Cairn doesn't care about the Arctic or the people who live here.

Greenpeace has been accused of running a campaign of misinformation by the Greenlandic minister of the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum, Ove Karl Berthelsen.

That is a harsh, and clearly false, accusation.

I would like to address the three main strands of criticism and provide the sources behind the facts we are using in our argument against Cairn’s risky and unnecessary oil drilling.

We say: One single exploratory drilling discharges more red listed chemicals than all the Norwegian and Danish drillings combined.

The overall amount of discharged chemicals is problematic. The chemicals are categorised and the red listed chemicals defined by OSPAR (Oslo-Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) as chemicals that “gives reason for suspicion because of several polluting effects on the environment and for that reason should be substituted”.

Every single Greenlandic exploratory drilling will discharge between 45 and 48 tons of red listed chemicals. That means that this year alone 187 tonnes will be discharged in to the Greenlandic sea. This is stated in the drilling license given by the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum appendix 3, p. 81-97.

In the submission from the Danish National Environmental Research Institute the formulation is not so ‘green’ as the Greenlandic Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum claim it is. On the first page of the submission you find that “the discharges of red chemicals is substantial (aprox. 200 tons from all four drillings) and in the longer term unacceptable (…) Capricorn has in supplementary documents explained the safety issues that makes the water based drilling mud used in Norway unfavourable solution for drillings in Greenland, 2011. The Danish National Environmental Research Institute has accepted this explanation after informal valuation by the environmental authorities in Norway”.

On critical issues the Greenlandic drillings is not in terms with Norwegian standards.

The Bureau of Minerals & Petroleum and Cairn Energy often claim, that ‘the drilling is carried out in accordance with very high demands for security and environmental protection’. This is not true.

For instance the Norwegian standards demand a zero discharge or, alternatively, minimal discharges of all chemicals. Red chemicals have extra high priority for substitution. This is stated in the Norwegian operational plan p. 64.

Best practise is more stringent than the Norwegian standards. For instance the rules regarding discharges in the Barents Sea and Lofoten in Norway are more stringent. In general there is zero discharge of red listed chemicals. This is stated in the Norwegian operational plan p. 65-66 box 5.2 & 5.3.

We say: Cairn and the Greenlandic Government is keeping the oil spill plan secret.

The director of The Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum, Jørn Skov Nielsen, has told Danish media, that the Greenpeace accusation regarding the Greenlandic government holding the oil spill response plan secret is not true. This is clearly false as you can see from our freedom of information application into the plan.

What this priority covers in relation to different seasons, fertilization season and breeding seasons of affected species

A scenario for which methods and resources will be put in use

Cairn Energy has published some oil spill scenarios, but everything that explains what to do in case of a oil spill, and for instance an estimation on how much of the oil Cairn will be able to recover, is not published. The Arctic Council , of which Greenland is a member, recommends that an oil spill response plan should be public. In the council guidelines on offshore drillings in the Arctic it says on p. 45, that “Operators should allow the opportunity for public review and comment on the (oil spill response) plan”.

Also describes the contingency plan for oil spills, how the licensee's preparedness to operate internally between holder and their subcontractors as well as how licensee must communicate with emergency management in Greenland.
The collecting has taken up the Coastal Zone Atlas ("Oil Spill Sensitivity Atlas"), including plans for placement of equipment and manpower DMU has prepared for the BMP.

Oil Spill Response Limited (OSRL) is a subcontractor of the licensee's oil spill preparedness. The company is part of the "Global Network Response", which is a cooperation between several major international oil spill response organizations. Rights of oil contingency plan describes the resources collecting and OSRL can insert depending on the extent of any oil spills.

The licensee also as part of its plan forwarded a list of equipment and material kept clear of the three levels of action and a timetable for how quickly the equipment and crews can be mobilized if a spill occurs."

So:
1) there is an oil spill plan
2) The plan has been approved by Greenlands BMP
3) It includes assessments of various zones sensitivity to oil spills
4) The three stage plan is described in broad detail in the document
5) The specifics of the plan include the locations of emergency equipment and crews.

Is it any wonder that BMP/Cairn do not want the details of 5) to get to GP? If they did GP would blockade, steal, Sabotage the equipment endangering lives again to stop the drilling.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Daithesci
says:

Dear Andrew,

"consider the fishing industry. What happens then with an oil spill? What about people who catch fish to eat themselves...

Dear Andrew,

"consider the fishing industry. What happens then with an oil spill? What about people who catch fish to eat themselves? "

Statistically fishing is the most dangerous job in the world, so it's not everybody's first choice.

Why then is Greenland's main industry fishing? Well because a) they have the resources, but also importantly b) it's because it's a poor country and there is little other choice to go and risk your life everyday on the high seas.

Oil revenue may open up other areas for people to work in. You want to deny them that. Shame on you.

Greenland gives permits for oil wells drill.
The big greedy companies will not drill for oil without Greenland gives permits.
Greenland can not cope it with just one one-pronged business structure with fishing alone.
What other real industry, may Greenland start in order to develop the country as we see it in Scandinavia and how?

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) TH
says:

Dear Mads Christensen,

You mention the submission from the Danish National Environmental Research Institute and quote it. Strangely, you ...

Dear Mads Christensen,

You mention the submission from the Danish National Environmental Research Institute and quote it. Strangely, you have omitted the key part explaining why DNERI has accepted the use of "red" chemicals just a little bit lower on the page:

"the majority of the "red" chemicals that are proposed to be discharged are of low toxicity and low biological accumulation, but exclusively classified as "red" because they are slowly degradable."

This means: the "red" chemicals are not particularly toxic and they are not accumulated in the food chain like a lot of the nasty stuff travelling from the industrialised countries to Greenland.

On that basis (and i.a. on the basis of a promised post-impact assessment of the seabed) DNERI finds the proposal acceptable. Your claim to have put cards on the table would be more convincing if it didn't take less than 10 minutes to find the contrary arguments you omitted for the sake of advocacy.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) TH
says:

Dear Mads Christensen,

You also write: "According to the Norwegian standards an oil spill response plan has to be public – see page ...

Dear Mads Christensen,

You also write: "According to the Norwegian standards an oil spill response plan has to be public – see page 7 in this report from the Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency."

I have been unable to locate that quote on page 7 in the report you list. The closest thing is it saying that "Dokumentene skal være tilgjengelige ved behov, for eksempel i forbindelse med høringer av søknader og tilsyn."

"The documents shall be available as needed, for example in connection with consultations on applications and oversight." (my translation)

Post a comment

To post a comment you need to be signed in.

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Mads
says:

Dear TH and Daithesci
I argue that the oil spill response plan should be made public. You argue that there is no need to and that you trust your government when they say it is a good and strong plan, and further that if it was public Greenpeace would probably destroy or mess with the clean up equipment.

I think the latter is an absurd allegation. You seem like smart guys and I have difficulty believing you yourself really buy that argument. I believe the reason for keeping the plan secret is that neither the Greenlandic government, nor Cairn, nor anyone else, has a good plan for how to clean up a major oil spill in Greenland, especially in those areas which is covered by sea ice part of the year. And I don’t think there is any good answers on how sufficient clean up equipment can be brought into the region quickly enough if needed.

The only way we can find out if I am right, is if the plan is presented so everyone can see it and judge for themself. Is that such a dangerous suggestion TH? Based on the comments in Greenlandic media a lot of Greenlanders seems to think that it would be a good idea to see the plan. That is also why Arctic council guidelines requests transparency in these kind of documents and why the NORSOK standards request that they are made publicly available.

TH, you seem to think that release of red listed chemicals in the Arctic is ok. I think Red listed chemicals should not be released into the sea. Not in Arctic, not anywhere. Danish experts from DMU thinks the same. They say a plan must be developed to phase out such releases, but they think it is the least problematic alternative this year. We are not that patient and we don’t agree. If Cairn were at all interested in environmental safety, surely at the least they could do would be to collect the red listed chemicals and take them for safe destruction on shore? If not possible in Greenland then in Europe or US. That is what is done elsewhere, also in Norway. So why not in Greenland?

Dear Knud. You ask what is the answer for a sustainable economy in Greenland independently of Denmark, if not oil. I wish I could present you with a masterplan of sustainable ideas which would guarantee wealth, prosperity and independence for Greenland. I can't. But most likely, neither can oil, and for certain not the coming decades. The history is paved with false promises from the oil industry and many countries have realized over the course of history that even if oil is found, the only clear winner is the oil industry. What I can say is, that already today a number of interesting projects is being considered and developed in Greenland. Which to me just makes it even more sad that the Greenlandic government with support from many in Greenland has chosen so aggressively to go after the perhaps least environmental sustainable resource, offshore oil.
Both for the global climate and for the Arctic environment this pathway is dangerous. Also for the key income of Greenland, fisheries, it is risky. One interesting alternative is the rare earth metals in Kvanefjeld, metals the world really needs. I hope Greenland will find a way to secure an environmental sound mining operation where also the problems around uranium is solved. I hope that Greenland will find use of its vast hydro energy potential. Here I especially think it is worth looking into the feasibility study Iceland has just done on a 1200km HVDC power cable to the UK. In China even longer HVDC cables have been constructed. Imagine connecting Greenland to the European grid, providing clean energy. A dream perhaps. But our world needs clean energy, and a lot of it. Europe more than anyone else has high ambitions for Co2 reductions and are increasingly phasing out nuclear. Oil is not part of the energy mix after 2050, many countries have already decided that, including Denmark. A visionary and sustainable development pathway for Greenland should take that into consideration.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) TH
says:

Dear Mads Christensen,

Just to address the two points you mention:

1) On publicly releasing the oil spills plans: I do not n...

Dear Mads Christensen,

Just to address the two points you mention:

1) On publicly releasing the oil spills plans: I do not necessarily disagree with the aims of Greenpeace, but with the means applied. I don't agree with interfering with ongoing drilling operations in an adverse environment - mainly because it is dangerous for activists as well as police personnel. That said, there can be good reasons for not releasing everything and some of the claims of Greenpeace have simply not been particularly accurate. In the Norwegian report you quote for instance, it is not clear if such plans should be publicly available overall. That is a shame, because it doesn't just affect the credibility of the Greenpeace campaign, but makes it harder to have a debate on the overall issues: as you mention, Cairn's liability and insurance coverage is a good point.

2) On the use of chemicals: this is my other problem with your argument - you used the headline red-listed chemicals without mentioning the actual type/impact of the chemicals used. So the comparison with Norway is a bit misleading. And it is not just about releasing chemicals, it is about the credibility of the management of oil drilling off Greenland. In this instance, there has been a consultation involving DMU who have accepted this as a temporary measure, so it is not just a gung-ho decision in favour of oil at any cost.

On a more general level, my problem with these campaigns is that they're all one-issue campaigns. You don't want Arctic oil - fine, but what's the trade-off? You also don't want coal and nuclear (and possibly bio-fuels may be bad to ecosystems as well seen in an isolated context). There are good reasons for that, but again - it's the system of energy consumption that's the main problem. As long as the demand is there, there will be oil exploration and drilling somewhere.